2013 Calgary Municipal Election Thread

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

With the election just a short time away. Is it likely we will see any more candidates come out of the wood work or is what we see at http://calgarydemocracy.ca the likely final list of candidates?

This is also a decent site for a list of candidates: http://www.calgaryliberal.com/calgary-election-2013/

Also, I just saw that Richard Poon joined the race in Ward 2. He was one of the main opponents of the shark fin ban in Calgary.

[SebC]

We're propping up some businesses at the expense of others. If you're a home builder or developer, the subsidies help you. If you're one of the oil companies downtown, you're paying extra tax to help make the home builders and developers richer.

As far as attracting people goes, again you're making it easier to attract suburbanites, but at the expense of the inner city types. You actually get a more attractive city overall if you let the market build housing diversity efficiently, rather than pushing people away from downtown with subsidies.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by SebC

As far as attracting people goes, again you're making it easier to attract suburbanites, but at the expense of the inner city types.

Luckily those inner city guys don't mention it all the time or it'd be insufferable.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Luckily those inner city guys don't mention it all the time or it'd be insufferable.

Oh noes! A municipal issue in an municipal election thread! The horror! The horror!

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Bunk

You're right, it's absolutely not about copying a growth model of any other city. It's about creating an efficient growth model that's suited to Calgary's unique circumstances. A somewhat more compact growth model will be more efficient for the tax-paying public and the individual. We can build out in this way, and create a place people really want to live and work.

This whole growth discussion shouldn't be about being so doctrinaire. It's not a radical shift really (despite some people's efforts to create false dichotomies of 500sq ft downtown condos vs. the suburban single family home) and we're witnessing this evolution already.

Pfft - I think the official position is 800 sq ft condos not 500 I'm kidding.

Honestly I'd still love someone to explain this one to calgarians without getting defensive or landing solely on ideology.

People want to live and work in Calgary as it is. But that doesn't mean we can't get better in lots of ways - and won't. Seems like something is going to change, unless its all smoke. But what will it mean for people not in the planning business?

The same amount of single family homes, just on smaller lots? How much smaller? More expensive? How much more? Fewer of them? How many fewer?

Or maybe none of those things in any one area, just slower development in general to let inner city density catch up?

I am guessing any mayor would not like to release that info in an election year where he is unopposed, but that would be really unfortunate. It should be a debate opened to - even forced on - the public. I should add to be clear I am not poking at the mayors transparency in general. This issue is clear as mud though.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Pfft - I think the official position is 800 sq ft condos not 500 I'm kidding.

Honestly I'd still love someone to explain this one to calgarians without getting defensive or landing solely on ideology.

People want to live and work in Calgary as it is. But that doesn't mean we can't get better in lots of ways - and won't. Seems like something is going to change, unless its all smoke. But what will it mean for people not in the planning business?

The same amount of single family homes, just on smaller lots? How much smaller? More expensive? How much more? Fewer of them? How many fewer?

Or maybe none of those things in any one area, just slower development in general to let inner city density catch up?

I am guessing any mayor would not like to release that info in an election year where he is unopposed, but that would be really unfortunate. It should be a debate opened to - even forced on - the public. I should add to be clear I am not poking at the mayors transparency in general. This issue is clear as mud though.

If the current plan to increase developer fees in 2015, if executed, would have these expected effects:

- developer fees increased by $7000 per single-family home (approximate average)
- price of a single-family home would increase by less than $7000 (as the developers would not be able to pass on the whole price increase)
- the price that the developer gets, after developer fees, decreases by less than $7000
- fewer single-family homes would be sold and built (demand sees a price increase and supply sees a price decrease)
- high-density homes would become more expensive to purchase (susbstitution effect of the price increase in SFH)
- taxes on high-density homes would be reduced (or tax increases avoided)
- tax benefit gained would surpass the net present value of the capital cost increase for high density homes (net effect of price increase and tax reduction is a decrease in the total cost of living)
- more high-density homes would be built and sold (market reaction the lower total cost that demand pays and increase in purchase price that supply)

That's still a simplification that doesn't capture all the likely effects (small houses to manage the cost? more services for the inner city instead of a tax break?) but I think it captures the main ones. Also, the Growth Management Framework would have different effects.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Hey, if it was up to me I'd ban signs on public property and require every voter to attend a forum in order to vote. Too many people vote for poor reasons. If people had to attend a forum then they might actually have a clue.

While I agree that a lot of the people don't research the candidates or issues enough, this is a terrible idea. For one it goes against the basic principles of democracy. Two, there is no fair way to say what is a poor reason and what isn't, what matters to you or the rest of the city may not matter to another person. Three, forums like that could and probably would end up being ways to control the vote. While it may have noble intentions in the start, it would get run over and railroaded by lobbies, special interest groups, and money very very quickly.

It also reinforces a sort of elitism in democracy which is a bad thing, as well, it would probably just end up discouraging a lot of people from voting.

[AMG_G]

Richard Poon is banking on the ethnic vote to win him ward 2. I was wondering why he showed so much interest in sharkfins....now I know it's to appease the large Chinese population in his ward. I really hope he doesn't win all he spews is BS....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzsWaZsl4oo

[JobHopper]

The big issue for me and what I want to hear from Mayor Nenshi in his campaign is taxes and how much are they going to be going up if at all. I can't believe that they can raise taxes anymore. They have to find other solutions.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

The big issue for me and what I want to hear from Mayor Nenshi in his campaign is taxes and how much are they going to be going up if at all. I can't believe that they can raise taxes anymore. They have to find other solutions.

any ideas?

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Slava

any ideas?

Cut red tape, increase efficiencies, take advantage of scales of economies. You know, detailed stuff like that.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

The big issue for me and what I want to hear from Mayor Nenshi in his campaign is taxes and how much are they going to be going up if at all. I can't believe that they can raise taxes anymore. They have to find other solutions.

The Mayor in the last budget cycle lobbied Council for and got about $108 million in efficiencies in a $3b operating budget. Operating spending has gone up by about 2.7-3.0% per year over his term. Considering Calgary grows by about 2.5-3.0% in population each year and faces inflation (municipal costs - things like fuel/labour) we're actually getting the same or more services for less dollars per citizen.

Property tax revenues tend to rise at a higher rate than actual spending increases as about half the budget is not taxation - but is user fees, business taxes, investments and other revenues that tend to be more fixed or do not necessarily rise with inflation.

Tax revenues at the provincial and federal governments have risen at almost exactly the same rate as your municipal taxes over the last couple decades, but since it's largely income, corporate and consumption based - it automatically keeps up with economic and population growth, whereas the City has to manually adjust the mill rate to derive the revenue it requires (as such it makes headlines the way that Provincial and Federal tax revenue increases do not).

Aside from pushing efficiencies through the budget process, the Mayor has done several things like introduce Zero Based (Budget and Operating) Reviews of every business unit in the City. Two of the largest departments by budget and personnel Parks and Roads are up next. Of course his Cut Red Tape program is ongoing and will continue to be embedded in the normal practices within the City going forward. The cost of growth is also another big determinant of being able to keep everyone taxes down. Quite simply growing more efficiently will make it a more efficient (cheaper) city to run. A big focus of the Mayor.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

The big issue for me and what I want to hear from Mayor Nenshi in his campaign is taxes and how much are they going to be going up if at all. I can't believe that they can raise taxes anymore. They have to find other solutions.

I don't see how they can NOT raise taxes. Calgary has amongst the lowest municipal taxes and highest roads spending in the country. That's not sustainable.

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't see how they can NOT raise taxes. Calgary has amongst the lowest municipal taxes and highest roads spending in the country. That's not sustainable.

I guess it depends upon how you spin it.

Total property tax per person, 2010:

Spoiler!

Combined utility and property taxes per person, 2010:

Spoiler!

Source:
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...es-survey.aspx

[TurnedTheCorner]

Raise taxes, they're pretty low.

[KelVarnsen]

And ban the Stampede!

[TurnedTheCorner]

You have my vote.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

I guess it depends upon how you spin it.

Total property tax per person, 2010:

Spoiler!

Combined utility and property taxes per person, 2010:

Spoiler!

Source:
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...es-survey.aspx

Sure does! Hence why I said amongst.

Spoiler!

Source:
http://www.calgary.ca/CA/fs/Document...f?noredirect=1 (2011 version, produced by Calgary because Edmonton stopped doing it)

[Slava]

It should come as absolutely no surprise that SebC will cherry pick data to continue his crusade again at the suburbs...

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Of course his Cut Red Tape program is ongoing and will continue to be embedded in the normal practices within the City going forward.

Any updates on progress here? I've given my usual rant about the speed we're getting new ARPs elsewhere, and a developer had this to say:

I went and purchased a site and I have a 34 unit rental building planned out that is 120 meters from the train, that I have been waiting nearly four months for even an initial pre-planning meeting with the city. It's looking like late September before I even get to sit down with the planning commission and talk about a development permit. I have been told to expect 9 months for permits after that.

If the city were to open up zoning it wouldn't save investors from the permiting and retofitting process. Everyone keeps missing that. Zoning isn't as much the issue as it was, as there are lots available right now that work. Permiting and red tape is the bigger problem for investors that want to provide legal suites to the public.

Any comment on whether the cutting red tape program will be getting to the planning departments any time soon? If affordable rental housing is one of the mayor's goals, it seems like the planning process is getting in the way more than its helping, as he indicated it could here:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/al...924/story.html